4 ms·

>Sovereignity resides in the people and there's no monarch so it's a republic Sovereignty residing in the people is not a feature of a republic. The only thin

>Sovereignity resides in the people and there's no monarch so it's a republic Sovereignty residing in the people is not a feature of a republic. The only thing that defines a republic is that it isn't a monarchy. If it's a republic and the government is elected by a democratic process, then it's a "democratic republic". And you don't need a republic to have a democratic state either: the UK and Japan are examples of this (both are monarchies).

defrost 2y ago
The US system is a mini-monarchy .. as recognised by the founders from the outset, a number opposing the notion. https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/executive-branch/ https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitut... Coming from a post US "Washminister* system (Australia) the US "Little King" looks very much a daft arrangement as exemplified by the inability to fire a POTUS for poor performance | losing support, etc. We retained a symbolic monarch as a "nominal" head of State to bind the notion of a country over the transient seatings of Government but seeded very little in the way of real effective power to that monarch. As a country we've swapped Prime Ministers (politically equivilant here to a US President) on a dime wothout skipping a beat in managing the country.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >The US system is a mini-monarchy Think what you like about the effectiveness of the US system, but it's not a monarchy in any way, shape, or form. A monarchy requires power (or at least a position that's supposed to have power, as most modern monarchies are really just figureheads) to be inherited. Sure, once in a while US presidents get to that position partly because of family connections (FDR, GWB), but that's nothing like the way an actual monarchy operates.
  - defrost 2y ago
    What I think is irrelevant, I'm not even USAian, I paraphrased an opinion held by the anti-Federalist founders held during the (US) constitutional debates. Clearly these were crazy people far divorced from reality as we know it modern times: During the ratification debates, Antifederalists charged that the President would become an elected monarch, that cabals would develop to ensure his reelection, and that the presidential veto power would be abused. They further feared that presidential power to grant pardons would allow the president to conspire with others in treasonable activities with impunity. I mean, really? Can you even imagine anything like that happening?
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is here. The US President is not a monarch, and even if some antifederalists used the term "elected monarch", they were obviously using it as a sort of hyperbole, rather than the normal and accepted definition of the word "monarch". Even if he somehow managed to subvert the normal checks and balances and use his power to turn himself into a dictator, that doesn't make him a monarch. Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, and Hussein were dictators too, but they were never monarchs. Monarchy is an institution where the head of state is an inherited position; anything that doesn't meet this definition is not a monarchy.
      - defrost 2y ago
        You're so hung up on the heredity angle you've missed the complaint inherent in the point being made during the drawing up of the US Constitution and implicit in my use of the phrase mini-Monarch .. states in which supreme authority is vested in an individual ruler and veer towards succession being tightly controlled.

defrost 2y ago

The US system is a mini-monarchy .. as recognised by the founders from the outset, a number opposing the notion. https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/executive-branch/ https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitut... Coming from a post US "Washminister* system (Australia) the US "Little King" looks very much a daft arrangement as exemplified by the inability to fire a POTUS for poor performance | losing support, etc. We retained a symbolic monarch as a "nominal" head of State to bind the notion of a country over the transient seatings of Government but seeded very little in the way of real effective power to that monarch. As a country we've swapped Prime Ministers (politically equivilant here to a US President) on a dime wothout skipping a beat in managing the country.

shiroiushi 2y ago
>The US system is a mini-monarchy Think what you like about the effectiveness of the US system, but it's not a monarchy in any way, shape, or form. A monarchy requires power (or at least a position that's supposed to have power, as most modern monarchies are really just figureheads) to be inherited. Sure, once in a while US presidents get to that position partly because of family connections (FDR, GWB), but that's nothing like the way an actual monarchy operates.
- defrost 2y ago
  What I think is irrelevant, I'm not even USAian, I paraphrased an opinion held by the anti-Federalist founders held during the (US) constitutional debates. Clearly these were crazy people far divorced from reality as we know it modern times: During the ratification debates, Antifederalists charged that the President would become an elected monarch, that cabals would develop to ensure his reelection, and that the presidential veto power would be abused. They further feared that presidential power to grant pardons would allow the president to conspire with others in treasonable activities with impunity. I mean, really? Can you even imagine anything like that happening?
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is here. The US President is not a monarch, and even if some antifederalists used the term "elected monarch", they were obviously using it as a sort of hyperbole, rather than the normal and accepted definition of the word "monarch". Even if he somehow managed to subvert the normal checks and balances and use his power to turn himself into a dictator, that doesn't make him a monarch. Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, and Hussein were dictators too, but they were never monarchs. Monarchy is an institution where the head of state is an inherited position; anything that doesn't meet this definition is not a monarchy.
    - defrost 2y ago
      You're so hung up on the heredity angle you've missed the complaint inherent in the point being made during the drawing up of the US Constitution and implicit in my use of the phrase mini-Monarch .. states in which supreme authority is vested in an individual ruler and veer towards succession being tightly controlled.